Blasting the myth of the "moderate Muslim majority" , using one of their icons . . .

[aneeshm]

Let me introduce you , gentle reader , to Dr. Zakir Naik , the favourite icon of "mainstream" Muslims in India . These are the people who are supposed to constitute the "moderate majority" , the "silent victims of a fringe" , the "victims of their misguided brothers' terrorism" .

There are two "Muslim" channels which I have seen in India . The first is Q TV , which is , I presume , common to Muslims who speak Urdu . The other is an "Indian Muslim" channel . Whenever I turn the second one on , I find that 90 % of the time , a certain eminent among Muslim scholars , Dr. Zakir Naik , is hogging ( pun intended ) their airtime .

Now it is obvious that his programs sell and generate subscribers , for otherwise he would not be put on air so much .

So we can assume that , even if he does not represent the whole of the Indian ummah , his views are representative of a very large chunk of them , most probably of the more moderate members .

Let us examine his views a bit more , shall we ?

From the Wiki , and after I've personally cross-checked this material against what is found on his own site :

His views

Naik claims to offer a rational understanding of Islam. Various aspects of Islamic law, Shari'a, he says, may seem illogical to non-Muslims, or non-practicing Muslims; Naik claims these rules are sensible. Islam, in his view, is the best way of life because its teachings constitute practical solutions for the problems of mankind.
[edit]

Adoption in Islam

Naik believes that muslims are allowed to adopt children but that such adoption cannot have a legal status under Islamic law. Giving the adopted child a legal name (of the parent) is something he considers forbidden. Also, once the child grows up, the female members of the family must treat him as a non-mahram (stranger) and observe hijaab (be veiled) in his presence.[2] (15:40 in the video link)
[edit]

Punishment for Apostasy

Naik believes that the Islamic injunction prescribing death for apostasy - those who leave the faith - is justified. He compares it to death penalties meted out to national traitors (army generals who defect being the example cited) and proclaims that apostates fall in the same category. [3] (30:15 in the video)
[edit]

Music

Naik asserts that all instrumental music is haraam (forbidden), except a one-membraned drum. [4].
[edit]

Riba or Interest

Naik believes that Muslims should not receive, give or witness interest-related financial transactions. He declares that it is haraam (forbidden) for Muslims to own and use credit cards. He also says that taking loans or getting insurance is prohibited. He takes this further and says that it is also forbidden for Muslims to work in banks.[5] (11:12 and 13:18 in the video link) His supporters claim that his comments are relevant only in the context of banks dealing with interest.
[edit]

Islamic dietary laws

Observant Muslims do not eat pork.

Naik argues that pork is forbidden because the swine is a dirty animal by nature, and that its flesh is the source of many diseases:

"The pig is one of the filthiest animals on earth. It lives and thrives on muck, faeces and dirt. It is the best scavenger that I know that God has produced." [6].

Naik also believes that diet has psychological/ethical consequences and one is what one eats :

"The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; many say 'you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife.' If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs" [7].

He also says, "Eating of pork can cause no less than seventy thousand different types of diseases. A person can have various helminthes like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc." [8].
[edit]

Hijab

Naik supports the practice of hijab, or Islamic modesty for both men and women. He writes that in Islam, a woman is required to cover herself entirely except for her face and hands up to her wrists. He claims that Islam thus protects women from the lust of men. For men, he prescribes looking away from women if immodest thoughts enter their minds.[9]

Naik goes on to say:

"Suppose there are twin sisters. While walking down the street, one of them is wearing a mini-skirt, while the other is wearing the hijab with everything covered with loose clothes except the hands up to the wrist. If there is a hooligan who is waiting to tease a girl, which girl will he tease? He will tease the girl wearing the mini-skirt." [10]
[edit]

Polygamy

Naik argues that polygyny, or the Muslim practice of taking up to four wives is justified as it is in the best interest of both women and men. He claims it protects the modesty of women, while keeping men from going astray. He writes in his website that human males are polygamous by nature and that a man is less likely to cheat if he has more than one wife.[11]He also believes that there are more marriageable women than men in the world and claims:

"If every woman got married to only one man, there would be over thirty million females in U.S.A, four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia who would not find a husband. Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property." [12].

Naik points to the verse 4:3 from the Qur'an[13] to explain the Muslim position on polygyny. This verse explains that a man can take more than one wife only if he is able to treat them equally. If he cannot do this, he should have a relationship with only one wife and/or "what your right hands possess" (i.e. female slaves and concubines). He says this brings out Islam's intrinsic fairness towards women.
[edit]

A woman's value as a witness

There is a verse in the Qur'an (2:282) which says that two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. According to Naik's interpretation, this verse deals only with financial transactions and murder cases. Naik says:

"In financial transactions, two men are preferred. Islam expects men to be the breadwinners of their families. Since financial responsibility is shouldered by men, they are expected to be well versed in financial transactions as compared to women. As a second option, the witness can be one man and two women, so that if one of the women errs the other can remind her." [14]

Naik extends this thought to murder cases and says:

"... the feminine attitude can also have an effect on the witness in a murder case. In such circumstances a woman is more terrified as compared to a man. Due to her emotional condition she can get confused. Therefore, two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness."

[edit]

Charity

Islam prescribes Zakaat, or obligatory charity. Ideally, every Muslim who has assets in gold, silver, livestock, savings and currencies that exceed the nisaab level should give 2.5% of those assets every lunar year to charity.

Naik believes that if Muslims followed Islamic law in this regard, poverty among Muslims could be eliminated. [15]
[edit]

Prosecution of criminals

Shariah (Islamic law) prescribes capital punishment for crimes such as murder and rape -- unless the victim's family either forgives the culprit or receives blood money, or both.

Naik believes that these penalties are necessary to prevent rape and murder, and that these penalties would ultimately make for a safer society.
[edit]

Permissible food in Islam

In a 2006 TV appearance, Naik declared that it was haraam, forbidden, for Muslims to eat prasad. Prasad is food offered to Hindu deities and then shared with friends and family; it is believed to convey blessings and good fortune. Naik said that too many Muslims say Bismillah over the food, and eat it to please their friends. Naik claims that this verse from the Quran:

6:121 Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans. (Yusuf Ali Translation)

forbids the eating of prasad.
[edit]

Wishing Christians a Merry Christmas

In a 2003 speech in Toronto [16], Naik asserts that it is haraam, forbidden, for Muslims to wish their Christian friends a merry Christmas. Naik believes that this common greeting acknowledges Jesus as a son of God and is thus blasphemy for Muslims.
[edit]

Implementing Shariah in India

Naik writes that while he appreciates that India presently allows Muslims to have their own personal law, "Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law (Shariah) to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical." [17]

As for his views on other religions :

Debates and dialogues

Naik sometimes participates in debates as part of his public activities. His supporters find two events notable:
[edit]

Debate in Chicago

One of the featured activities at the 2000 Chicago ICNA Conference (a gathering of American Muslims) was a debate titled "The Quran & the Bible in the Light of Modern Science", between Naik and a Christian medical doctor named William F. Campbell. Campbell took three years out of his practice to write a book called The Qur'an and the Bible in the light of history and science (first edition 1992, second edition 2000) [18], which he conceived as a rebuttal to Maurice Bucaille's 1976 The Bible, The Qur'an, and Science [19]. Each of the debaters tried to discredit the other's scripture by parsing out verses from their counterpart's Holy Scripture and pointing out perceived errors. The debate can be downloaded from Naik's website. Links to a streaming video can be found in the External links.[20].
[edit]

Inter-religious dialogue in Bangalore

An "Inter-Religious dialogue for Spiritual Enlightenment" was held on the 21st of January 2006 at Bangalore. Naik and the founder of the Art of Living, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, spoke on the topic The Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam , in the light of sacred scriptures. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

This was by far the biggest dialogue in which Naik participated and can be viewed here.

During the event, Naik said, "religious tolerance is important in Islam but tolerance does not mean acceptance." He claimed that people of other religions were misguided and said, "Muslims would have a problem with the Hindu imagery of the god Vishnu."
[edit]

Ali Sina's challenge

Naik does not appear to accept all offers to debate, despite claims by his organization as that being his primary activity. Internet debater Ali Sina's offer to Naik for a written debate has remained unanswered for over 3 years.[26].

After numerous attempts to reach out to Naik, Sina has been instructed by Naik's assistants that Naik does not participate in written debate. Sina has instead been posed a counter challenge by Naik's supporters to arrange for a live audience of at least 10,000 people. Sina, in counter claim, claims this demand unjustified and cites the threat to his life from Islamic terrorists as well as the lack of time in a televised debate. He has instead offered to publish the written debate on his website.[27]

The full debate with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar can be viewed here . It's rather big - three hours - so I'd recommend those without broadband stream it , and those with broadband download it - it's nearly 1 GB when you download it . In that debate , the Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said that it was not his to judge other religions , while Dr. Zakir Naik said that other religions were misguided .

A nice chap who we can all get on with , eh ?


I don't think much more comment is needed - the debates , and his views , speak for themselves .

 

[Rambuchan]

I don't think much more comment is needed - the debates , and his views , speak for themselves .

So do yours.

Here's some free advice:

Your ardent postings on these matters do nothing for the good name of Hindu moderates....

 

[C~G]

A nice chap who we can all get on with , eh ?

I don't think much more comment is needed - the debates , and his views , speak for themselves .

I kinda of agree with Rambuchan here.

You could maybe offer some kind of point for discussion or it will be considered as nothing more than a trollthread.

But he's not the chap we try to get along with, but his crowd. It's like saying that we should get along with Bill O'Reilly in order to get along with conservative americans. Don't you agree?

 

[Commie #4522]

So do yours.

Here's some free advice:

Your ardent postings on these matters do nothing for the good name of Hindu moderates....

y do u always seem to defend muslims cuz everywhere i go u are

 

[CartesianFart]

If you think about it,Commie,every organizations can be defended with some eloquence.If you have no sense on what is good or bad.Think of the Sophists of ancient Greece.

 

[Paradigne]

I see a few errors in his beliefs:

"If every woman got married to only one man, there would be over thirty million females in U.S.A, four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia who would not find a husband. Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property." [12].

CIA FACTBOOK

USA: 15-64 years: 65.2% (male 2,152,066,888/female 2,100,334,722)
UK: 15-64 years: 66.8% (male 20,476,571/female 19,988,959)
Germany: 15-64 years: 66.4% (male 27,889,936/female 26,874,858)
Russia: 15-64 years: 71.3% (male 49,271,698/female 52,679,463)

"The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; many say 'you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife.' If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs" [7].

I have known many people to raise pigs. They are VERY intelligent (more so than dogs) and are very clean animals. I also think that talking about 'wife-swapping' is a stretch, I have heard of people doing this, but have never met anyone who practiced it.

I disagree with a LOT of his other comments, but that is a difference in beliefs, not inaccuracies of fact.

 

[HannibalBarka]

bla bla bla bla
Now it is obvious that his programs sell and generate subscribers , for otherwise he would not be put on air so much .
So we can assume that , even if he does not represent the whole of the Indian ummah , his views are representative of a very large chunk of them , most probably of the more moderate members .
crap crap crap crap

Hemmmmmmmmmmmmmm, let's examine this bright chain of argument from brother Aneeshm: He is basically saying that since this guy is on this TV channel than obviously people are watching him, a very large chunk of indian muslims for that matter. What brother Aneeshm don't seem to understand is:

1. Tens of TV channels have a combined audience of 0.00001% of the whole population. Some have more people working in them than people watching them

2. Watching a TV channel is in no way agreeing with its "programs". I happen to watch Fox News from time to time, and I can tell you I don't specifically adhere to their views to say the least

So all in all, 1% of the people watching this guy, who represent 0.001% of indian muslims, agree with his crap: that makes 0.00001% of the whole indian muslims population ie roughly 2 persons: this guys and his wife

 

[Bamspeedy]

I see a few errors in his beliefs:

CIA FACTBOOK

USA: 15-64 years: 65.2% (male 2,152,066,888/female 2,100,334,722)
UK: 15-64 years: 66.8% (male 20,476,571/female 19,988,959)
Germany: 15-64 years: 66.4% (male 27,889,936/female 26,874,858)
Russia: 15-64 years: 71.3% (male 49,271,698/female 52,679,463)

I have known many people to raise pigs. They are VERY intelligent (more so than dogs) and are very clean animals. I also think that talking about 'wife-swapping' is a stretch, I have heard of people doing this, but have never met anyone who practiced it.

I disagree with a LOT of his other comments, but that is a difference in beliefs, not inaccuracies of fact.

Those stats cut off at 64 years old. Women outlive men. So if some 85 year old woman wants to share her husband with another 85 year old woman, more power to her.

 

[Stile]

He seems fairly moderate to me. Do you have problems with all of those billets? Sure, his views on polygamy and apostacy are nutty, but credit cards are horrible. His opinion on dietary restrictions and his disdain for other religions seem like they could be no other way. Plus I can watch the 400 Club and not agree with everything the man says, so your premise outlined in the title is faulty.

 

[aneeshm]

I kinda of agree with Rambuchan here.

You could maybe offer some kind of point for discussion or it will be considered as nothing more than a trollthread.

But he's not the chap we try to get along with, but his crowd. It's like saying that we should get along with Bill O'Reilly in order to get along with conservative americans. Don't you agree?

I think , my dear fellow , that the title provides ample fodder for discussion . I expect this to be a debate between those who say that the majority of Muslims are normal people , versus those who say that they tend more towards fundamntalism than other religions , due to the nature of their faith .

I've come to realise that there is a third religion here - that of the Fundamentalist Tolerists . It is one of their holy doctrines that whenever Islam is attacked , they have to defend it , irrespective of how well-reasoned the attack may be , using their standard repertoire of the following three things :

a) Even if a quote from the Quran , with supporting evidence and context from the Hadith , along with a lot of historical precedent , is used to criticise Islam , they have to cry "Out of Context ! Out of Context !" .

b) Once that is exhausted , they have to say that it is not restricted to Islam alone , and try to attack the religion of the person criticising Islam

c) If that doesn't work , then they have to justify it by saying that most Muslims are moderates , so we should all ignore the fundies causing problems

Their last step has not yet been sufficiently refuted , and all previous efforts to dislodge them from that last trench have either proven unsuccessful or have taken too long for people like me to bother . So in starting this thread , I've already got the opposition down to the last line of defense . Once I finish them there , that'll be it . My side will have won .

Most people fail to recognise that my side has nothing in common except that we have all recognised the true nature of the Islamic faith . We come from different countries , with different languages , with different faiths , different everything , in fact . But we are the ones who have the judgment required to see the root cause of the problems we face today .




As for this being a trollthread - I have full confidence in the moderators of CFC . I'm sure thay can see that a thread quoting a great amount of relevant material , whose very title is a starting point for a ( very , very hard-fought ) debate , is not a troll .

 

[C~G]

a thread quoting a great amount of relevant material , whose very title is a starting point for a ( very , very hard-fought ) debate , is not a troll .

You can of course quote whole Quran here and then say it's full of crap but that doesn't offer much start for discussion, now does it?

my dear fellow , that the title provides ample fodder for discussion . I expect this to be a debate between those who say that the majority of Muslims are normal people , versus those who say that they tend more towards fundamntalism than other religions , due to the nature of their faith .

But with this and the points you made you offered a starting point for discussion and it's up to us others then try to battle those points in a way or another.

I don't report this kind of stuff anyhow since I try to reason with the poster first.
And it seems you are reasonable fellow in that sense so I answer to your points even though later -since now I got to run again.

 

[aneeshm]

But you see , I provide fertile ground for debate to spring up by stating my own views , by replying to you people who have replied to me , and by defining the camps the debaters will fall into .

 

[Rambuchan]

y do u always seem to defend muslims cuz everywhere i go u are

So what if I do? And why do you choose to bring this up?

I choose to comment in a fashion that few others do, because for me to join the herd and rant against a group of people with lies, prejudice and ignorance, contrary to what my own studies and understanding is, well, that is something that I can't bring myself to do. It doesn't make for much of a discussion if I join the rant and I'm not going to lie to keep folk like your good self happy.

I think some far more revealing questions to ask would be:

- Why do so many on here attack Muslims in general?

- Why are there not more people who do post positively about Islam to broaden our understanding of Islam's moderate majorities?

(I can almost smell the sweat of the usual suspects chomping at the bit to answer those questions! The answers are quite closely related I would suggest.)

And, this is what concerns me about aneeshm's posting on these matters, for he is indeed a learned and intelligent poster....

- Why does one of the few Hindu posters on here (if not the only one) have to besmirch the lengthy and honourable tradition of Hindu tolerance with his relentless diatribes against Muslims, which are often based in quite obvious lies or serious misunderstandings?

So we can assume that , even if he does not represent the whole of the Indian ummah , his views are representative of a very large chunk of them , most probably of the more moderate members .

No, you can't assume that. You have taken one commentator, on one Indian TV channel, and your impression that he is on it "90% of the time" (got airtime and media analysis links?) and sought to use this as some kind of proof that the majority of moderate Muslims in India share his views? Sorry, that's not good enough and I think you know it. Consider that and then look at your misleading thread title.

And also consider that someone like Bill O'Reilly may have a lot of airtime on the USA's highest rated news channel, but that doesn't make the majority of Americans raging, right wing, patriotic, lying nutcases, of its own accord does it?

If you are seeking to put this forward in this way, I suggest you look at (a) the viewing ratings of this channel related to folk defining themselves as 'moderate Muslims', (b) how much airtime Dr Naik actually gets, (c) how the channel is funded and who it is run by, (d) where else are his views shown to be 'popular', if that is indeed the case (e) the view that advertisers take of the channel's demographics and (f) what other measures of the political/religious views of the channel's viewers might be used to support your case outside of this limited indicator you're trying to put together. [edit: (g) you would also need to compare those figures against population, consensus figures for India and then the world] Your OP has done none of that and its assumptions fell flat on their face over here. I reckon if you went and followed those procedures you would be most disappointed.

 

[aneeshm]

I think some far more revealing questions to ask would be:

- Why do so many on here attack Muslims in general?

Really ? There is a core group of posters on this board who attack , not Muslims , but Islam the ideology . They have to contend with a far , far larger number of posters who support Islam , like you . The fact that they manage to get their point across , and that they have slowly shifted the general mood of the forum in their direction in a very significant way , is a tribute to their dedication to truth . And I fear not for them - their tribe increases day by day .

- Why are there not more people who do post positively about Islam to broaden our understanding of Islam's moderate majorities?

But there are ! As there is a core group of people on my side , there is a core group of people on yours ( though there are some in your group whom I'd rather not have on my side - HannibalBarka comes to mind , due to his complete inability to follow the decencies of debate ( he's mostly OK otherwise ) ) . And the big fight is between these two . The rest of the people who post are more casual about the whole thing . It's fun , to be very frank with you . Otherwise we wouldn't be here , would we ?

And you forget - when I started my first thread called "Clearing up misconceptions about Islam , and a request . . . ." , I was alone . I had to single-handedly take up intellectual arms against what was then probably the entire forum . It was only after that that the core group which I refer to as on my side began to coalesce into the semi-organised unit it is today .

And, this is what concerns me about aneeshm's posting on these matters, for he is indeed a learned and intelligent poster....

Thanks for the compliment , but . . . . . .

- Why does one of the few Hindu posters on here (if not the only one) have to besmirch the lengthy and honourable tradition of Hindu tolerance with his relentless diatribes against Muslims, which are often based in quite obvious lies or serious misunderstandings?

But my dear man !

Firstly , I'd like to clear up this "against Muslims" thing . I have nothing against Muslims as people . They're people , just as human as everyone else . It's their religion in its root which is , IMHO , the problem-causing agent . So my fight is against the ideology of Islam , not the people who are Muslims .

Hindu tolerance does not mean blind acceptance of everything , does it ? Hindus always have been physically very tolerant , but when it comes to the intellectual realm , it's always been no-holds-barred , religion-on-religion action . We'll allow any community to live peacefully within our country , but don't expect us not to heap whatever criticism we wish on you ( giving you , of course , the right to do the same to us ) . Don't dish it out if you can't take ( as Muslims apparently can't ) .

I'll give you the example of the Jain community . They have always lived peacefully alongside the Hindus , since known history . No problems . But Jain theologians have condemned Hindu gods ( such as Krishna ) to the lowest levels of hell until the end of this cycle of creation , and Hindu theologians have done the same . In no way , however , did this affect either community's relations with the other . It was an intellectual spat , and it remained confined to the intellectual realm . Similarly , I seek to fight Islam the ideology .

I'll give you another example . In our college , there are a sum total of two Muslims in our batch of around 300 people . Both of them are the liberal types - they act just like us , do the same things we do , and so on . One of them is a guy , in our division . I like him . He's seems to me to be a solid character . The other is a really HOT girl , in another division . Thankfully , she doesn't wear the hijab ( ) . She dances with us , does the same things we do . These people are not my target . It is the people who refuse to integrate into our society , who pose a long-term and short-term threat to us , who are . And even they are a target in only an intellectual sense . I don't actually advocate doing anything to them .

And why do I have this attitude towards Islam that I do ?

A myriad of reasons . The first being history . When I see that almost everything that Hindu society achieved in its golden age was destroyed during the Muslim time , I get disgusted and angry .

The second is Islam's defining doctrines . It smells too much of assumptions of superiority and the denigration of other faiths . Even today , people like Zakir Naik are calling down curses upon my religion , and we do nothing .

The third is Islamic theology , the standard interpretation of Islamic doctrine , so to speak . When I read the fatwas pronounced in the last twenty-five years , I feel disgust , as well as pity for the people caught in Islam .

The fourth is the problems Islam is causing even as we speak . If poverty and deprivation due to the West were the reasons of terrorism , India would have been a prime candidate for breeding anti-Western Hindu terrorists . But it isn't . So the cause must lie somewhere else . It is my belief that the cause is Islam , and that it must be fought as such .

By birth I am one of the highest castes , but that is irrelevant , because true caste is determined by our actions and words , not by our birth . By choice I am what David Frawley would call an "intellectual Kshatriya" - an intellectual defender of the faith - a mixture of a Brahmin and a Kshatriya . We Hindus need this new breed .

Is my position clearer now ?

 

[Veritass]

USA: 15-64 years: 65.2% (male 2,152,066,888/female 2,100,334,722)

I think those must be the worldwide numbers. We don't have four billion people in the U.S.; it only seems that way at times.

 

[Paradigne]

I think those must be the worldwide numbers. We don't have four billion people in the U.S.; it only seems that way at times.

Your right, that is worldwide, my bad, thanks for the catch

USA: 15-64 years: 67.2% (male 100,022,845/female 100,413,484)

Those stats cut off at 64 years old. Women outlive men. So if some 85 year old woman wants to share her husband with another 85 year old woman, more power to her.

His numbers are syill way off. I just posted the most common marying age group for simplicity. If you are over 64 and want more than one wife, knock yourself out. Otherwise the numbers are about even.

 

[Katheryn]

The point is that we expect 'moderate' Muslims to be assimilated into our culture when they immigrate.

The fact that this man is considered 'moderate' and has these views, which we are always told are 'extremist' just shows that the only real moderate (in Islam) is an apostate.

 

[Katheryn]

I think those must be the worldwide numbers. We don't have four billion people in the U.S.; it only seems that way at times.

LOL, that's right! I think we are at around 300 million in the U.S.

I checked that link and the number is for worldwide.

 

[Sidhe]

The point is that we expect 'moderate' Muslims to be assimilated into our culture when they immigrate.

The fact that this man is considered 'moderate' and has these views, which we are always told are 'extremist' just shows that the only real moderate (in Islam) is an apostate.

I think the problem is that real moderates are rarely mouthpieces of faith, as they tend to live simply without a need for devisivness, what I mean is the real moderates are often overwhelmed by those who have some political platform or idealist rant to propogate; the press reports those views that are contreversial more often, and people tend to assign more significance to such viewpoints. Regardless of whether they are the majority, the uninformed or biased percieve it that way. After all you remember controversy far easier than you do tolerance and peace, sometimes that's all people see or want to see.

LOL, that's right! I think we are at around 300 million in the U.S.

I checked that link and the number is for worldwide.

The US was due to break the 300 million barrier this September,

 

[Sanaz]

Let me introduce you , gentle reader , to Dr. Zakir Naik , the favourite icon of "mainstream" Muslims in India . These are the people who are supposed to constitute the "moderate majority" , the "silent victims of a fringe" , the "victims of their misguided brothers' terrorism" .

There are two "Muslim" channels which I have seen in India . The first is Q TV , which is , I presume , common to Muslims who speak Urdu . The other is an "Indian Muslim" channel . Whenever I turn the second one on , I find that 90 % of the time , a certain eminent among Muslim scholars , Dr. Zakir Naik , is hogging ( pun intended ) their airtime .

Now it is obvious that his programs sell and generate subscribers , for otherwise he would not be put on air so much .

So we can assume that , even if he does not represent the whole of the Indian ummah , his views are representative of a very large chunk of them , most probably of the more moderate members .

Let us examine his views a bit more , shall we ?

I don't think much more comment is needed - the debates , and his views , speak for themselves .

Trying to denounce all believers of a single religion by the views of a single celebrity figure doesn't make any sense. For the most part you would not expect to see a moderate person seeking the spotlight, that would be left for the sensationalists. So your basic premise is false, it is not at all obvious as you state in your opening arguments.

I don't care if someone's religion is Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, fill-in-your-favorite-religion-here, you can always find some representative remarks from some sources of authority to make the religion look ridiculous. Religion spends a lot of time on our daily lives, on who we are, and people can get a bit touchy about that. Most people are moderate, most people of any culture are moderate, most people of any race are moderate, and most people of any religion are moderate. That is why it is called moderate. It is the average, the middle-ground. Arguing against this is like arguing that water isn't wet.

You can tell a whole lot more about how extreme some faction of some society will be based on economics and political situations than you can by what religion they practice.